Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz: Background Check Goal a 'Federal List of Every Gun Owner in America' (News Video at link)
Bretbart ^ | April 11, 2013

Posted on 04/12/2013 11:12:24 AM PDT by Red Steel

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Fox News' "Hannity" discussing universal background checks:

-snip-

"Why is all this focus directed at background checks? The reason is because the Department of Justice has said the only way to implement what they want–universal background checks–is a registry, a federal list of every gun owner in America. And that would be wrong; it'd be unconstitutional."

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: absolutedespotism; banglist; donttreadonme; govtabuse; guncontrol; guns; longtrainofabuses; registration; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; tedcruz; tyranny; usurpations; waronliberty; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 04/12/2013 11:12:24 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Any senator who goes along with this is a TRAITOR!!


2 posted on 04/12/2013 11:16:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yep. It’s just registration by another path.


3 posted on 04/12/2013 11:18:14 AM PDT by MulberryDraw (That which cannot be paid, won't be paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
...it'd be unconstitutional.

That's all that needs to be said.

4 posted on 04/12/2013 11:19:59 AM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yes, it definitely is unconstitutional BUT with the SCOTUS we have now, would it be found unconstitutional? That’s the 17 trillion dollar question? Even my husband doesn’t believe they would ever be able or want to confiscate all the guns in this country. I say...my husband is crazy...of course that is exactly what they want to do. The people in this country better wake the HELL up!


5 posted on 04/12/2013 11:21:42 AM PDT by Cricket24 (Sick of spineless Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

No more cops’ “drop guns”?


6 posted on 04/12/2013 11:22:42 AM PDT by Amagi (Obama is never so animated as when he is assaulting the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Once again, Ted Cruz is right on target.


7 posted on 04/12/2013 11:27:06 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Any of them who do not protect our 2nd Amendment right has violated their oath to the constitution. It’s treason to me. I hate what these people are doing. Citizens are being pushed into a system of one party rule with no opposition right before our eyes. People have warned many for years of this happening..now, you can’t say it’s just a misunderstanding of what this government with the corrupt media’s assistance is doing to all of us.
8 posted on 04/12/2013 11:27:23 AM PDT by Christie at the beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MulberryDraw
what the elites want is an EXCUSE to arrest somebody and throw them in jail....

they will use the registration list as an open warrant....

oh so and so was killed with a .22?..they will pull up every .22 owner and investigate them...

it will be a political tool...

a convenient excuse to rid themselves of enemies...

how often do you read that the cops raid someones house and they find an "arsenal"....like that in and of itself is wrong, or criminal..

9 posted on 04/12/2013 11:31:42 AM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

A gold mine for a criminal.


10 posted on 04/12/2013 11:31:45 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

What we are facing now is a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object - a design to reduce us under absolute despotism. In this situation, we have a clear right and duty to restore constitutional government. I hope the socialists will back down before this turns ugly. I’m not optimistic, but I am hoping - while also following the Boy Scout Motto.


11 posted on 04/12/2013 11:32:06 AM PDT by Pollster1 (A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Ted Cruz is the only Senator worthy of his Senate seat. If I’m a nut job and a crazy whacko bird for supporting the Constitution, so be it. I am so sick of liberals. What goes around eventually comes around. And when they finally get what’s coming to them on their individual judgment days, I won’t shed one tear. I will go to my grave knowing I was on the right side and not the side who agrees with slaughtering innocent babies. They cry for the children of Newton and stay silent during the trial of the evil man who stabbed babies in the neck. This is a sick country.


12 posted on 04/12/2013 11:33:11 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Sadly, Ted Cruz is the ONLY Congresscritter to come even remotely close to being a patriot. I applaud his courage in a sea of traitors.


13 posted on 04/12/2013 11:33:42 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Let's just say that any senator that votes for this is registering themselves to a list for permanent expulsion from government.


Register the traitors! Make it easy to find them on election day to confiscate their seats!
14 posted on 04/12/2013 11:37:52 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cricket24

Gun confiscation will be done nationwide, but NOT by the government. Lists will be sent out to all local Sheriffs and THEY will do the gun confiscations... Quietly, one door at a time. And like the Kermit Gosnell story, the media will not cover it. Americans will have no way of knowing what’s being done to their fellow citizens.. Quietly.. One gun at a time. One thing that WILL happen however, is barricade situations by stubborn Constitutionalists who refuse to relinquish their God-given right.


15 posted on 04/12/2013 11:38:30 AM PDT by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cherry

“””oh so and so was killed with a .22?..they will pull up every .22 owner and investigate them...””””

That would be senseless. All the “registered” names would be from law abiding citizens that abide by the process. 99.999999% of the time, the crime is from an UNLAWFUL gun owner that is already scoffing at current gun restrictions.
I am sure Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger will hurry down to the courthouse to register their mac10s and sawed offs, huh?

Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger will not register their names.

Why can’t liberals get this!!!!!!

Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger don’t follow the law.

Hey Liberals! You can make 1000 new gun laws today and Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger will still rob and shoot someone tomorrow.

I say.... You can make 1000 new gun laws today and Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger will still rob and shoot someone tomorrow.

Again... You can make 1000 new gun laws today and Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger will still rob and shoot someone tomorrow!

Restricting law abiding citizens just makes Tyrone and Julio Gangbanger’s job alot easier.


16 posted on 04/12/2013 11:45:38 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The Manchin-Toomey “bipartisan compromise” amendment is already so watered down that the MSNBC hosts today were asking prog/lib guests whether they should vote against it in protest because it does not do enough to track/prevent law-abiding citizens getting guns. Barry FAILS again!


17 posted on 04/12/2013 11:45:40 AM PDT by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

Ted Cruz is the only honest and upright man in DC.

LLS


18 posted on 04/12/2013 11:46:38 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: azishot

Even if it’s blatantly unconstitutional,
if the court says it’s constitutional,
there’s nothing else to say.


19 posted on 04/12/2013 11:46:38 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
In Mississippi they will not... we passed and the Governor signed a law ordering the State Police to arrest ANY Federal, State or local enforcement officer that tries to enforce any unConstituional Federal Laws or EO’s.

LLS

20 posted on 04/12/2013 11:48:44 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mylife

I’d like to see the list of all federal employees who have taxpayer-funded protection by armed personnel. Do members of Congress have such protection?


21 posted on 04/12/2013 11:55:03 AM PDT by IM2MAD (IM2MAD=Individual Motivated 2 Make A Difference)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: envisio

22 posted on 04/12/2013 11:58:26 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Where could you register as a criminal, so you don’t have to register your guns?

This is completely idiotic as a crime fighting tool. They’d be better off registering criminals by law.


23 posted on 04/12/2013 12:02:44 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Afraid the Supremacy clause still allows federal laws to take precedence over state laws.
It will eventually come to states telling the Feds to come enforce SC rule. And they will.


24 posted on 04/12/2013 12:05:23 PM PDT by 9422WMR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

And what may I ask are people going to do about all of these traitors in office..............nothing, so they will do as they will and the people will whine but comply, even as they take them to the re-education camps.


25 posted on 04/12/2013 12:11:28 PM PDT by stockpirate (COME AND GET THEM.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Senators were originally tasked with representing the states rather than being just another house of congress.

Ted Cruz gets it. He is the only real Senator we got going now. Rand Paul may be another. A rare species.


26 posted on 04/12/2013 12:13:16 PM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms." James Madison


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

27 posted on 04/12/2013 12:17:05 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

We should all take our guns to DC and “register” them.


28 posted on 04/12/2013 12:21:10 PM PDT by right way right (What's it gonna take? (guillotines?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

29 posted on 04/12/2013 12:23:10 PM PDT by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffaloguy

I would add Sen. Jeff Sessions.


30 posted on 04/12/2013 12:30:41 PM PDT by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Seattle Conservative

Agreed. The rest are all Federal employees.


31 posted on 04/12/2013 12:38:03 PM PDT by buffaloguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IM2MAD

From what I have seen by the number of armed guards at federal buildings in Chicago, extrapolate that to the entire country and then add all the TSA goons to that number, there would be a solid line of people across the southern border stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf.

All those armed federal employees are to protect the government from us.


32 posted on 04/12/2013 12:45:05 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cherry
it will be a political tool...

A tool that will be used as a blunt instrument. It will be used especially during a "crisis"...Katrina, Sandy, flood, blackout, riot, whatever. When Marshall law is declared, guns will "temporarily" be outlawed. Once they have your guns, you do not have your guns. The Bloombergs of the world will send in a SWAT team to confiscate a few, then a few more...you know the rest.

33 posted on 04/12/2013 12:50:52 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Cyprus - the beginning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

Democrats think that “...from my cold dead hands....” is nothing more than right wing-nut hyperbole.

Wonder what they’ll say when they find out it isn’t?

They need to study Thermopylae for their answer.....Malon Labe....

Citizens passing by, tell your children that here, in defense of our Constitution, I lay.

Not too hard to live up to the oath I took those so many years ago.


34 posted on 04/12/2013 1:06:24 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare berry bear formerly known as Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]




Hate FReepathons? End them!
Donate Just One $10 Bill Monthly
And Become a FR Hero


Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up

35 posted on 04/12/2013 1:09:52 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
BATF already has been building federated data bases all around the country - that way the Administration is running outside the law.

ATF Death Watch 148: Lies, Damned Lies and Federal Gun Registries a>

Video: Democrat Admits Obama Agenda Is Total Gun Ban
36 posted on 04/12/2013 1:09:56 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9422WMR

Texas and Mississippi will not comply.

LLS


37 posted on 04/12/2013 1:11:15 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Even if it’s blatantly unconstitutional, if the court says it’s constitutional, there’s nothing else to say.

Only to do.

38 posted on 04/12/2013 1:17:27 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta
From what I have seen by the number of armed guards at federal buildings in Chicago, extrapolate that to the entire country and then add all the TSA goons to that number, there would be a solid line of people across the southern border stretching from the Pacific to the Gulf.

All those armed federal employees are to protect the government from us.

. . . . . . .

A tool that will be used as a blunt instrument. It will be used especially during a "crisis"...Katrina, Sandy, flood, blackout, riot, whatever. When Marshall law is declared, guns will "temporarily" be outlawed. Once they have your guns, you do not have your guns. The Bloombergs of the world will send in a SWAT team to confiscate a few, then a few more...you know the rest.

. . . . . . .

I think y'all need to not only read this article, but print it out and refer to it often . . . .

http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/

How many of those overpaid out of shape TSA workers would be willing to sacrifice their life for Odumbo and his socialist utopia?

39 posted on 04/12/2013 1:24:16 PM PDT by Conservative_Rob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 9422WMR
Afraid the Supremacy clause still allows federal laws to take precedence over state laws.

Not so, at least in this case:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
As the bold section shows, such laws must be in 'Pursuance' of the Constitution (Pursuance: the carrying out or pursuing of an action, plan, etc.) and therefore cannot be contrary to it -- the 2nd Amendment, being a part of the Constitution & unmodified by subsequent amendments therefore, is in full operation and such a registry scheme [as in the topic] infringes on the rights to both keep and bear arms.

Moreover, according to MARBURY V. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) the obvious is strengthened: a normal legislative act contrary the Constitution is null and void:

[...] This [the constitution] original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

        'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

40 posted on 04/12/2013 1:50:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Yet we have a resident of the White House who is a cons-ta-two-shun-all scholar (yea, right) who has the idiot hand-out majority believing he is da king of em all.
All he says is believed and supported by the media and unfortunately a majority of voters. We can continue to shout reality about the constitution, but reality nowadays seems to be based on opinion. :-(


41 posted on 04/12/2013 2:18:17 PM PDT by 9422WMR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Apparently the GOP controlled House, led by Paul Ryan is starting to back gun control. If so, I am through with the GOP and will vote libertarian.


42 posted on 04/12/2013 2:46:34 PM PDT by TennTuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“if the court says it’s constitutional,
there’s nothing else to say.”

******

“[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” - President Andrew Jackson


43 posted on 04/12/2013 2:56:43 PM PDT by peyton randolph (FUBO and his wookie beard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Ted Cruz is the only republican senator you can actually believe when he says something.


44 posted on 04/12/2013 4:49:54 PM PDT by NKP_Vet ("The only glory in war is surviving")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Look for people to hid their guns, thus not complying.


45 posted on 04/12/2013 4:53:39 PM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Revolt is coming.


46 posted on 04/12/2013 4:57:29 PM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cricket24

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


47 posted on 04/12/2013 6:10:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

Do you people honest think that the records of your NICS check for every gun you bought legally, REALLY disappeared from the FBI database? Fools. They cannot admit that they keep it, because they are prohibited by Congress from keeping it; but it’s all a part of the federal archives, and as soon as they get universal checks, (so there is a more comprehensive data set) all those records are going to be put to use. Anyone who ever worked in the federal government knows that records DON’T go away.


48 posted on 04/12/2013 6:36:47 PM PDT by Segovia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Segovia

Well I agree and again point you to the article I linked about LIES and gun registries. They already have the data. The trick is to have us think that only the licensed firearms dealer is keeping the records for 20 years for crime scene analysis.


49 posted on 04/12/2013 7:53:50 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Even if it’s blatantly unconstitutional, if the court says it’s constitutional, there’s nothing else to say.

The Supreme Court is not quite the final arbiter. Since government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, we - the people - have the final say. It may not be pretty, but at that point the more than 100 million armed Americans have to decide whether they liked Schindler's List or prefer a country in which the police and military are not the only ones with guns.

It serves no positive purpose to discuss how each individual would decide that issue, not in a public forum, but I sincerely hope the gun-grabbing leftists are keeping that final question in their minds. They cannot count on Justice Roberts as the final word in an unconstitutional power grab, not when they are crossing this line.

50 posted on 04/13/2013 7:43:43 AM PDT by Pollster1 (A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson